Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 22 octubre 2019

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 10 abril 2016see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Tabaquismo

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Robyn Whittaker

    Correspondencia a: National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    [email protected]

  • Hayden McRobbie

    Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

  • Chris Bullen

    National Institute for Health Innovation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Anthony Rodgers

    The George Institute for Public Health, Sydney, Australia

  • Yulong Gu

    School of Health Sciences, Stockton University, Galloway, USA

Contributions of authors

RW is the lead author of this review.

For the most recent update:

  • RW and YG selected studies for inclusion.

  • HM reviewed the selected studies for inclusion.

  • RW and YG independently extracted data from the papers and undertook the analysis.

  • All authors contributed to the writing and editing of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • National Institute for Health Innovation (Auckland Uniservices), New Zealand.

  • Cancer Council Victoria, Australia.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

RW was co‐author of one paper on one of the included studies (Bramley 2005). She was a co‐investigator on two included studies (Free 2009; Free 2011), and principle investigator of a further included study (Whittaker 2011).

CB and HM were co‐authors of Whittaker 2011.

RB was co‐author of one of the trials (Borland 2013), and he led the development of the intervention.

AR was a lead author (Rodgers 2005), and a co‐author (Free 2009; Free 2011; Whittaker 2011), on included studies.

HM received honoraria from Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer for speaking at educational events and attending advisory group meetings. He has also received investigator initiated research funding from Pfizer.

RW's institution has received grant money to cover the costs of providing the text messaging intervention for the study described in Free 2011, and there is a grant pending to develop this intervention further for a different audience. The institution has also licensed the STOMP intervention described in Rodgers 2005 to HSAGlobal.

All other authors had no other known conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the assistance of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Editorial base in the preparation of this review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2019 Oct 22

Mobile phone text messaging and app‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Review

Robyn Whittaker, Hayden McRobbie, Chris Bullen, Anthony Rodgers, Yulong Gu, Rosie Dobson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub5

2016 Apr 10

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Review

Robyn Whittaker, Hayden McRobbie, Chris Bullen, Anthony Rodgers, Yulong Gu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub4

2012 Nov 14

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Review

Robyn Whittaker, Hayden McRobbie, Chris Bullen, Ron Borland, Anthony Rodgers, Yulong Gu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub3

2009 Oct 07

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Review

Robyn Whittaker, Ron Borland, Chris Bullen, Ruey B Lin, Hayden McRobbie, Anthony Rodgers

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Protocol

Robyn Whittaker, Ron Borland, Chris Bullen, Ray Lin, Hayden McRobbie, Anthony Rodgers

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006611

Differences between protocol and review

We have followed the change of policy of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, and now report our findings using Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect risk ratios rather than as odds ratios. Previously, we had not pooled studies in the presence of substantial statistical heterogeneity as assessed by the I2 statistic, but in this update of the review, we report pooled results due to the homogenous nature of the included studies in terms of design, intervention and outcome.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Humans;

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mobile phone intervention v ersus control, outcome: 1.1 26‐week cessation outcomes all studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mobile phone intervention v ersus control, outcome: 1.1 26‐week cessation outcomes all studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control; outcome: 1.4 26‐week biochemically verified cessation outcomes (six studies).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control; outcome: 1.4 26‐week biochemically verified cessation outcomes (six studies).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 1 26‐week cessation outcomes all studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 1 26‐week cessation outcomes all studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 2 26‐week continuous abstinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 2 26‐week continuous abstinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 3 26‐week 7‐day point prevalence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 3 26‐week 7‐day point prevalence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 4 Biochemically verified 26‐week abstinence.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Mobile phone intervention versus control, Outcome 4 Biochemically verified 26‐week abstinence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Text messaging‐only interventions, Outcome 1 26‐week quitting outcomes.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Text messaging‐only interventions, Outcome 1 26‐week quitting outcomes.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 Text messaging plus face‐to‐face interventions, Outcome 1 Text message plus face‐to‐face interventions.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Text messaging plus face‐to‐face interventions, Outcome 1 Text message plus face‐to‐face interventions.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation

Patient or population: people who smoke
Setting: mobile phone technology
Intervention: mobile phone smoking cessation interventions
Comparison: controls

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed quitters without intervention

Estimated quitters with mobile phone interventions

26‐week smoking cessation

Study population

RR 1.67
(1.46 to 1.90)

11,885
(12 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate 1

There was evidence of moderate heterogeneity across the included studies

56 per 1000

93 per 1000
(81 to 106)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 There was evidence of moderate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses around potential explanations for heterogeneity did not make substantial differences to the findings.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Mobile phone‐based interventions for smoking cessation
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Mobile phone intervention versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 26‐week cessation outcomes all studies Show forest plot

12

11885

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.67 [1.46, 1.90]

2 26‐week continuous abstinence Show forest plot

8

10679

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.72 [1.50, 1.98]

3 26‐week 7‐day point prevalence Show forest plot

7

3888

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [1.03, 1.35]

4 Biochemically verified 26‐week abstinence Show forest plot

6

7360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.54, 2.19]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Mobile phone intervention versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Text messaging‐only interventions

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 26‐week quitting outcomes Show forest plot

7

9887

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.69 [1.46, 1.95]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Text messaging‐only interventions
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. Text messaging plus face‐to‐face interventions

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Text message plus face‐to‐face interventions Show forest plot

5

1995

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [1.12, 2.11]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Text messaging plus face‐to‐face interventions
Ir a la tabla de la revisión